Title, director and release year? Title: Food, Inc. Director: Robert Kenner Release Year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film is about the foods we eat and how it’s produced. The first half of the film is about the industrial production of meat, and its inhumane and unsanitary practices. Ever since the 1950s, the production of food has drastically changed. Our nation’s meat is controlled by a few corporations, and they have a goal of producing large quantities of food at low cost. This means that the health and safety of the meat we eat and the workers that produce the meat are terrible and often overlooked.
Chicken are raised to grow faster with larger breasts to the point where the chicken’s skeletal structure cannot support the chicken’s weight, so their legs break and they lose the ability to walk which can lead to death. An average Tyson chicken farmer makes roughly $18,000 a year, however, each chicken house costs $300,000 with mandatory upgrades, so the chicken farmers usually have large debts and the chicken houses are usually kept in disgusting conditions. Cattle are kept in small areas, and have to live and defecate in their small living enclosure. Their hides are caked with these mounds of fecal matter, and sometimes the feces gets into our food supply and causes health hazards such as E. Coli. Additionally, the farms that raise these cows also have crops they grow nearby, and the fecal matter usually drain into these crops because of the mass quantity of it, so the crops also have outbreaks of E. Coli.
The crops planted today are not as innocent as one may think. Monsanto has a monopoly over seeds because it patent crops that are resistant to their herbicide roundup. So, if non-Monsanto farmers accidentally grow Monsanto crops, Monsanto sues for infringement, and the farmers don’t have the money to keep up with the legal fees and are often closed down. Additionally, government subsidies over corn is causing problems, because corn is so plentiful and cheap to produce, that everything that shouldn’t be eating corn is, like cows and fish, which is not good by any means.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Food is one of the most essential things in life, and we have gotten to a point where we can’t recognize the foods we eat. Corn isn’t just corn anymore, it’s an insecticide as well. The practices that corporations use to produce are food is dangerous to the consumer and the workers, and inherently unsustainable. The way corporations are using land to produce our meats or crops is environmentally unstable. Land where meat is produced are often overgrazed and toxic because of the large amount of fecal matter. Land where crops are produced have toxic herbicides and pesticides sprayed all over it, or biodiversity is lost because GM crops are used instead of the native species.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought the entire film was extremely compelling for the most part because watching the conditions in which the chicken or the cow is produced is disgusting. It’s one thing to read that cows are treated poorly, but it’s entirely different to see this feces caked cow get slaughtered for our consumption.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not compelled by the organic farmer. He had no concept of what is sanitary. There are so many contaminants outside, that obviously killing and processing your chickens outside is not a good thing to do and is not sanitary by any means.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I focused on food for my first three presentations because I was extremely interested in why our food has become the way it is, and why people have accepted it. For instance, in my “Food Pyramid” presentation, I learned a lot about why Americans think the way they do about nutrition and how industry has changed policy for its benefit. Like, the meat industry has gotten the words “cut down” in regards to meat replaced with “eat lean” while upping the portions of meat.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film best addresses Americans, because our standards for food is terrible and convoluted with industry interests. Viewers after watching this film should think critically about what they eat, and personally, I can say that I changed my eating habits after watching this film. I can’t consciously purchase Tyson chicken anymore knowing how the chickens are grown and kept, so I feel like viewers may do the same and make conscious and educated decisions about the foods they choose to eat.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film suggests eating locally produced and organic foods, and changing the standards in which food is mass produced.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Overall, the film suggests that organic and natural foods are good. I believe if the film went more in detail in terms of how companies actually carry out these standards and beliefs, or if they even do, that would have been greatly informative. For instance, companies can say “all natural” without actually doing anything because “all natural” isn’t a regulation. There’s no standard for “all natural” so any company can say that.
Food Inc.
Title, director and release year?Title: Food, Inc.
Director: Robert Kenner
Release Year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film is about the foods we eat and how it’s produced. The first half of the film is about the industrial production of meat, and its inhumane and unsanitary practices. Ever since the 1950s, the production of food has drastically changed. Our nation’s meat is controlled by a few corporations, and they have a goal of producing large quantities of food at low cost. This means that the health and safety of the meat we eat and the workers that produce the meat are terrible and often overlooked.
Chicken are raised to grow faster with larger breasts to the point where the chicken’s skeletal structure cannot support the chicken’s weight, so their legs break and they lose the ability to walk which can lead to death. An average Tyson chicken farmer makes roughly $18,000 a year, however, each chicken house costs $300,000 with mandatory upgrades, so the chicken farmers usually have large debts and the chicken houses are usually kept in disgusting conditions. Cattle are kept in small areas, and have to live and defecate in their small living enclosure. Their hides are caked with these mounds of fecal matter, and sometimes the feces gets into our food supply and causes health hazards such as E. Coli. Additionally, the farms that raise these cows also have crops they grow nearby, and the fecal matter usually drain into these crops because of the mass quantity of it, so the crops also have outbreaks of E. Coli.
The crops planted today are not as innocent as one may think. Monsanto has a monopoly over seeds because it patent crops that are resistant to their herbicide roundup. So, if non-Monsanto farmers accidentally grow Monsanto crops, Monsanto sues for infringement, and the farmers don’t have the money to keep up with the legal fees and are often closed down. Additionally, government subsidies over corn is causing problems, because corn is so plentiful and cheap to produce, that everything that shouldn’t be eating corn is, like cows and fish, which is not good by any means.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Food is one of the most essential things in life, and we have gotten to a point where we can’t recognize the foods we eat. Corn isn’t just corn anymore, it’s an insecticide as well. The practices that corporations use to produce are food is dangerous to the consumer and the workers, and inherently unsustainable. The way corporations are using land to produce our meats or crops is environmentally unstable. Land where meat is produced are often overgrazed and toxic because of the large amount of fecal matter. Land where crops are produced have toxic herbicides and pesticides sprayed all over it, or biodiversity is lost because GM crops are used instead of the native species.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought the entire film was extremely compelling for the most part because watching the conditions in which the chicken or the cow is produced is disgusting. It’s one thing to read that cows are treated poorly, but it’s entirely different to see this feces caked cow get slaughtered for our consumption.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not compelled by the organic farmer. He had no concept of what is sanitary. There are so many contaminants outside, that obviously killing and processing your chickens outside is not a good thing to do and is not sanitary by any means.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I focused on food for my first three presentations because I was extremely interested in why our food has become the way it is, and why people have accepted it. For instance, in my “Food Pyramid” presentation, I learned a lot about why Americans think the way they do about nutrition and how industry has changed policy for its benefit. Like, the meat industry has gotten the words “cut down” in regards to meat replaced with “eat lean” while upping the portions of meat.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film best addresses Americans, because our standards for food is terrible and convoluted with industry interests. Viewers after watching this film should think critically about what they eat, and personally, I can say that I changed my eating habits after watching this film. I can’t consciously purchase Tyson chicken anymore knowing how the chickens are grown and kept, so I feel like viewers may do the same and make conscious and educated decisions about the foods they choose to eat.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film suggests eating locally produced and organic foods, and changing the standards in which food is mass produced.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Overall, the film suggests that organic and natural foods are good. I believe if the film went more in detail in terms of how companies actually carry out these standards and beliefs, or if they even do, that would have been greatly informative. For instance, companies can say “all natural” without actually doing anything because “all natural” isn’t a regulation. There’s no standard for “all natural” so any company can say that.